Author
Topic: The Probability of the Big Bang (Read 38744 times)

So I was reading about this thing that said about the probability of the Big Bang Theory being possible. And essentially it said that a mathematician did some calculations for if all the right variables were present at the right time and the right lightning hit the right spot on the premordial ooze and that created a living thing which through the random natural selections could this possibly result in the state we have today with humans. And he said the probability was:1in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. What are your thoughts on this?

We atheists are sort of picky. Before we get in an argument with someone, we want them to know something about the subject. The "Big Bang" is a well supported scientific theory that currently provides the best explanation for how the universe as we know it began. It relates only the the early universe as it formed. Very quickly.

The Big Bang happened about 13.7 billion years ago.

Abiogenesis is the scientific term for the beginning of life. On earth, scientists believe life started about 3.5 billion years ago. And if you're hauling out the old creationist stories about primordial ooze and such, this is obviously what you are wanting to discuss, and not the Big Bang.

If I wanted to start and argument about the existence of jesus and began by wondering what he was doing in the Himalayas 4,000 years ago, you would not be the least bit impressed by my scholarship and I'm guessing you would not too inclined to reply to my claims. Because they would sound so preposterous to you.

It works both ways. You haven't even bothered to read the overview of either the Big Bang or Abiogenesis on Wikipedia. You got yourself seduced by a bunch of numbers (appropriately, zeros), and blustered your way through the first post of this thread, probably hurting yourself trying to type and pat yourself on the back at the same time. I would suggest you try reframing your argument in such a way that it qualifies as coherent and also makes a point.

This is 2012. You have at your fingertips information on everything from electrons and microbes to the universe and everything in between. And you're not even willing to pretend you are informed.

This is sad. I do hope you take the time to redeem yourself in our eyes by reading something relevant and reposting your question to make it intelligible.

jakec47, what you have stated is not the Big Bang, nor is it any accepted scientific theory. The "primordial ooze and lightning" scenario does not exist in any scientific theory.The Big Bang theory states simply this:About 13.7 billion years ago[1], the total mass of the universe (even the universe itself) was condensed into a singularity. This singularity then began expanding exponentially, getting colder as it did, per the laws of thermodynamics.That's all.

It is supported by the fact that the universe is expanding even now (at an increasing rate, no less). If it had simply been created as it was right now, it would be contracting, due to gravity. We know it's expanding due to an effect known as "redshift".Simply put, the light coming from a few "nearby" stars and galaxies has shifted towards infrared (and there is less light reaching us). If the universe were static, there would be no measurable effect whatsoever. If it were contracting (which would be bad for us) the effect would be reversed (the light would be shifting towards UV, rather than IR).

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

Oh and that number has 1230 zeros. I could have wrote it in scientific notionnotation but i couldn't figure out how on here. 10^1230101230, maybe this is good enough.

There, fixed it for you...not that it actually helps.

There are a bunch of little buttons right above the text box. Just above all the smiley faces. Play with all of them and use the "preview" button in between the "post" and "spell check" buttons before you submit your post.

Really, you can't even figure out how to use the functions a forum offers it's users when it's right in front of your face, how can you expect to be taken seriously when you try to talk about cosmology and abiogenesis?

« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 03:31:07 AM by jaybwell32 »

Logged

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Consider that if the opportunities for an event to occur are unlimited, then the event is certain to eventually occur if its probability of occurring at each opportunity is anything other than zero. That, of course, raises the question: were there unlimited opportunities for the big bang to occur? I don't know. And neither does the mathematician that you speak of. The answer to that would require an understanding of a larger context within which our universe exists, and currently, it's not at all clear what such a context would be like, whether there exists any possible way to learn anything about it, or even whether any larger context exists.

Do you see the problem? Without knowing the number of opportunities, the probability of a single occurrence tells us nothing at all about whether the big bang could have happened by chance. It doesn't matter how many zeros there are. There are other problems with creationist probability arguments against the big bang and evolution, but the opportunities problem alone is sufficient to render them all moot. And at the end of all the hand-waving and moot speculation, we're left with the fact that there is ample evidence that the big bang and evolution did, in fact, occur, whatever the odds.

We can see that all galaxies are moving apart, and can measure how fast they are moving. If we run that backwards, we get a date of ~13-14 billion years ago that they were all together at one point.

We also can make predictions about what SHOULD be there if the BB happened, like: There should be a residual background glow from the explosion...and we have found that background glow....and it exactly matches the predicted form. From the glow we can determine a more exact age of 13.72 billion years for the universe, and that agrees with the above number.

We can also make predictions about what the chemical composition of the universe should be if the BB happened.....and the measured composition EXACTLY matches the predictions.

We have also never found ANYTHING (rocks, stars, galaxies, etc) that is older than 13.72 billion years old.

There are even more lines of evidence pointing to the BB. It happened.

The whole universe was in a hot dense state, then nearly 14 billion years ago expansion started..wait! The earth began to cool, the autotrophs began to drool, neanderthal discovered tools.Math, science, history, unraveling the mystery. It all started with a big bang. BANG!

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

read more (specifically about that which you wish to talk about)think more (specifically think about what you have read, and what it actually means)speak less (until you are at least reasonably informed or educated about what you are wishing to discuss)

ask more questions from a basis of rational appraisal, not just uninformed guesses

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

The probability of an event occurring after it occurs is one. Statistically it is one with 100% confidence.Generally if something occurred and statistic prediction was strong that it shouldn't have occurred, the either the event was a very unlikely fluke, or most likely, you make a mistake in your assumptions or math. My first statistical assumption when I hear some "odds" like that, is that the person has shit for brains.

Excuse my levity. I love the Bare Naked Ladies doing the theme for the Big Bang Theory. I just couldn't resist.

Spend a little time in the Evolution Vrs Creation threads and you will see that yours is a common misconception. Of course, Googling Big Bang theory can be quite helpful as well.

And asking questions here is a good start, too.

.

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

So I was reading about this thing that said about the probability of the Big Bang Theory being possible. And essentially it said that a mathematician did some calculations for if all the right variables were present at the right time and the right lightning hit the right spot on the premordial ooze and that created a living thing which through the random natural selections... What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts, first and foremost, are that you don't know what you're talking about. You are committing the same error that we have seen believers commit again and again and again: confusing the Big Bang Theory with abiogenesis and/or evolution, when in fact the three concepts have nothing to do with each other. (The error is perplexing enough as it is, but what's even more peculiar is that, when science-minded types try to explain the error to the believer, the believer almost never says, "Oh, sorry, my mistake." The reaction is almost universally, "Yes, they are too the same thing!") You cannot speak out against a particular concept -- in science or in any other field -- if you don't even understand it.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

The odds of something occurring become better as the circumstances for that occurrence become better. Let's use the lottery as an example. Pretend that you've picked 6 numbers: 4 8 15 16 23 42 (Lost reference). The lottery works by drawing six numbers out of six separate bins each containing the numbers 0-99. The odds of you having picked the right number sound astronomical. But imagine that you were allowed to keep and replay the same numbers indefinitely. Help your chances? Not really. So how do we tune the circumstances? Well, we have to observe rules that support a win in your favor. So now, each day that numbers are drawn, any numbers matching your list are placed on the pedestal and the drawing continues. It may take a while, but eventually we would have six pedestals full of numbers that give us an occurrence of WIN.

This is how nature works. There are set of rules in place that allow all of the occurrences we see to happen, given that the circumstances to create that occurrence increases past a certain threshold.

I also like to use lightning as an example. The odds of lightning striking on a cloudless day is zero. But as you add clouds, the circumstances change and allow the probability of a lightning strike to rise.

So arguing that something isn't possible because of "odds" is stupid. If the circumstances are correct, it WILL happen. That's just how nature works. It is not magical, and no scientist will claim it is.

Wow sorry your guys don't have to haggle me about it so much, I found that info on the web and wanted to know if you thought it was accurate, i would have posted the link but I couldn't find it. So i looked again and here it is http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html. Oh and thanks again for the nice comments. (Not serious). However I do appreciate the input of monkeymind and ParkingPlaces. If you got a problem take it up with this guy, I don't know how he did the research or whatever, just thought you all would like to say something about his theory (wrong as it might be).

Jake, please try to mentally understand (even though you can't take the time to gather facts, that most of us on here have come to the 'obvious' conclusion about our reality and science is the best method yet to show this reality happening.

Please also understand that you are 1 out 1,293,930,393 people and counting who deliberatly sign onto this forum trying to make wacky judgements and baseless claims about something you have to take the time, gather information and facts, and then make a logical, 'unemotional' decision; even if it makes us feel uncomfortable because the ones who are closest to you probably believe this nonsense and hope and think you to do....

Please understand that this DOES get quite old on some of us at time.... Imagine someone coming into your house everyday with the same baseless questions and/or assertions about things you know to be facts about your own life. I think you would be more than annoyed.

Logged

Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

I would be interested to see the original. However, I think that this would be unlikely as Penrose does not seem to have ever said this. I suspect it is "quote-mining" by creationists, for it is on creationist sites that you find all the references to the alleged Penrose claim, and I suspect that whatever he said has been deceitfully altered/taken out of context by all-too-common liars that inhabit the snake-oil department of Christianity.

« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 08:42:01 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Wow sorry your guys don't have to haggle me about it so much, I found that info on the web and wanted to know if you thought it was accurate, i would have posted the link but I couldn't find it. So i looked again and here it is http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html. Oh and thanks again for the nice comments. (Not serious). However I do appreciate the input of monkeymind and ParkingPlaces. If you got a problem take it up with this guy, I don't know how he did the research or whatever, just thought you all would like to say something about his theory (wrong as it might be).

jakec47

First of all, it would have been wise of you to include the link in your first post. No biggie, but next time you are so inclined, you might pass on your source. If helps me with my rants.

Now that I know your source, I know a bit more about what you were talking about. And so the first thing I want to say is that the calculation in question does not say that there is only a one in 1010123 that ANY universe would form. But rather that is the chance of our specific universe forming.

One of the possibilities considered by physics is that there are a lot of universes. An infinite number, in fact. In which case, 1010123 is a drop in the bucket. Well, not even that much.

We don't know that, of course. And the Penrose calculation may or may not be considering all the factors accurately. I don't know how it could, actually, because we don't know all the factors. But that could mean the number, if calculated with all the appropriate data on hand, could be larger or smaller. We don't know that either.

We're here. Or at least I am. You guys on the site might be a figment of my imagination. But if we are indeed all here, then our existence is a fact. At least using our own standards. If it is a fact, then something happened for it to get here. We who accept that science is on the right track look at that number and say "Whew, we were lucky!" Those of you who think science is wrong every time it disagrees with holy scripture assume that the existence of an infinitely wise dude who loves us is more likely. You say "Whew, we were lucky!"

So see, at least we're in agreement about one thing. Wouldn't it be more fun to work with that than run around condemning the other side for being a bunch of ignorant hicks?

Be real nice, state your case and concerns in clear and unambiguous language, be fair about it and understand and accept that we have our differences, and I'll teach you how to post scientific notation here. Fair enough?

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

For those who don't know, I majored in philosophy, and my thesis topic was the mind/body problem. An interesting comparison from my research occurred to me this morning. This individual says that the likelihood of the universe forming the way it did was 101230 -- that is, the number one followed by 1,230 zeroes. Even assuming that that's accurate -- and we really have no way of knowing whether it is -- here's a fun little comparison regarding the human brain.

Quote

If one harbors doubts that a system of dopey neurons could remotely begin to account for the range of thought and the plasticity of cognition, consider this: A typical neuron has synaptic connections emanating from on the order of 3,000 other neurons (this is an average, some neurons have as many as... 100,000 [synaptic inputs], and some only a few). That would make for on the order of 1014 distinct possible synaptic connections (1011 neurons times 103 connections). If we assume that each of these 1014 connections is capable of one of only 10 possible weights at any given time (this is a conservative estimate), the total number of distinct neural states is 101014 or 10100,000,000,000,000.

{Source: Owen Flanagan, "The Science of the Mind"}

That's the number one followed by one hundred trillion zeroes. I was going to expand on that, but decided not to. I think it speaks for itself.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

For those who don't know, I majored in philosophy, and my thesis topic was the mind/body problem. An interesting comparison from my research occurred to me this morning. This individual says that the likelihood of the universe forming the way it did was 101230 -- that is, the number one followed by 1,230 zeroes. Even assuming that that's accurate -- and we really have no way of knowing whether it is -- here's a fun little comparison regarding the human brain.

Quote

If one harbors doubts that a system of dopey neurons could remotely begin to account for the range of thought and the plasticity of cognition, consider this: A typical neuron has synaptic connections emanating from on the order of 3,000 other neurons (this is an average, some neurons have as many as... 100,000 [synaptic inputs], and some only a few). That would make for on the order of 1014 distinct possible synaptic connections (1011 neurons times 103 connections). If we assume that each of these 1014 connections is capable of one of only 10 possible weights at any given time (this is a conservative estimate), the total number of distinct neural states is 101014 or 10100,000,000,000,000.

{Source: Owen Flanagan, "The Science of the Mind"}

That's the number one followed by one hundred trillion zeroes. I was going to expand on that, but decided not to. I think it speaks for itself.

mind boggling great stuff

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

If you got a problem take it up with this guy, I don't know how he did the research or whatever, just thought you all would like to say something about his theory (wrong as it might be).

But he didn't bring it up....you did!

Anytime you read a theory like that, ask that person to calculate the odds for this:

Take 8 people, 4 of each gender, out of the entire population of the earth.Calculate the odds of them forming 4 specific pairs.Calculate the odds of a specific sperm fertilising a specific ovum from each pair, forming 2 of each gender.Calculate the odds of those four forming 2 specific pairs, and their fertilisation odds.Calculate the odds of those two offspring meeting, out of all the billions of people in the world, and for a specific sperm fertilising a specific ovum there as well.

My bet is they won't be far off the astronomical odds that you quoted.....and yet the number they came up with would be the odds against them existing....traced ONLY back to great-grandparent level.

And yet it clearly happened!!!!!

Remarkable eh? And a clear demonstration of why quoting probabilities, and understanding their application, are two entirely different things.

Wow sorry your guys don't have to haggle me about it so much, I found that info on the web and wanted to know if you thought it was accurate, i would have posted the link but I couldn't find it. So i looked again and here it is http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html. Oh and thanks again for the nice comments. (Not serious). However I do appreciate the input of monkeymind and ParkingPlaces. If you got a problem take it up with this guy, I don't know how he did the research or whatever, just thought you all would like to say something about his theory (wrong as it might be).

seems that this is the usual thowing shit against a wall and hoping some of it sticks. Creationists have been repeatedly shown that their lies don't work. I don't believe for one moment that you "just thought" anything. Like so many creationists you think you have some new magic bullet but you don't even try to see if it's already been addressed. No, you just assume other creationists wouldn't lie to you and you try to spread their nonsense further.

Again, if you really do want to be come a police detective, you have to know how to research. Not doing so will get you bit in the ass every time.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

. And he said the probability was:1in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. What are your thoughts on this?

We're here aren't we.

Logged

"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

So I was reading about this thing that said about the probability of the Big Bang Theory being possible. And essentially it said that a mathematician did some calculations for if all the right variables were present at the right time and the right lightning hit the right spot on the premordial ooze and that created a living thing which through the random natural selections could this possibly result in the state we have today with humans. And he said the probability was:1in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. What are your thoughts on this?

Well, how did the scientist ESTImAte the probability?

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

What are the odds that theists will actually someday understand probabilities?

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

And he said the probability was:1in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. What are your thoughts on this?

Wow, those are pretty high odds alright. Can you ask him to calculate the odds of a god becoming so bored with being Omnipotent that it would create a physical universe and also human beings to live in it?